Universal Background Checks

I hope this is the right forum. I get Legal and Activism mixed up as to which to use for gun control. Anyway,

It seems to me that Universal Background Checks should be something to allow to happen--with one modification, that being not required for immediate family. Presumably, if you know your son needs treatment for bipolar disorder or chronic depression, you're not going to give him your AR! Other than that, I don't object to a background check. I'm not a busy buyer/seller of guns, but about a year ago I sold my G19 to a guy I know fairly well...at least I think I do. I don't really know his whole history, though, and even though I'm pretty comfortable that I sold that Glock to a good guy, I could still take comfort in a background check. Indeed, I tried to find a local FFL who would do that, but none would.

Criminals don't get back ground checks; they don't buy guns legally so back ground checks are pointless.

Why impose more limitations on law abiding citizens?

USAF_Vet

January 26, 2013, 05:50 PM

Not to mention the fact that it is de facto registration, which could ultimately lead to actual registration, would could lead to confiscation.

So there's that. Also, it's a massive cost that they cannot afford to implement.

bowserb

January 26, 2013, 06:03 PM

Is it not a background check that is done when I buy a gun at a gun shop? That so called instant background check takes a couple minutes, and I was under the impression that there was no gun registration done, only the verification that I am not a criminal. The only record of what I bought is in the dealer's "bound book" that DOJ and BATFE have no access to--and that's been tested.

I don't see how access to that same instant background check couldn't be done for individual sales. I don't have forms, but for a reasonable fee, couldn't any FFL do that? You have to do that if you buy a gun online. Does everyone who sells a gun sell only to people they know? If all you know is that he has cash to pay, how do you know you're not selling to a criminal?

And please don't flame. I'm truly concerned here that maybe there really is a "gunshow loophole" that we could allow to be plugged. BTW, I'm also willing to give Diane two of the weapons on her list: rocket launcher and belt-fed semiauto.

Blakenzy

January 26, 2013, 06:04 PM

A universal background check may be abused.

If face to face transactions are made a felony, all transactions would have to go through a centralized system, under Federal scrutiny. If all firearm transfers are required to go through an FFL, ALL updated personal information of the buyer, seller and firearm being transferred will be collected. This would happen for each and every transfer. If provisions are not made that will limit the amount of time that records of said transaction may be kept on file, they could be held indefinitely, and that would add up to a impromptu registration system.

Also, what exact criteria will be used to pass/fail an individual? Will the Federal Government be able to change said criteria in the future? Will a past history of antidepressant treatment disqualify you? Will going through civil court such as divorce proceedings disqualify you for the time being?

Remember arbitrary no-fly lists? Could there be no-gun buy lists? What will get a person on that list? If you are on the no-fly list, will you be on the no-gun list?

It could go very bad if the Law leaves to many parameters open ended, up to the Executive's or other Government Bureaucracy's discretion. A universal mandatory background check is in essence a licensing apparatus to exercise a Constitutional Right. You must seek approval for each and every gun you buy.

bowserb

January 26, 2013, 06:09 PM

A universal background check may be abused.

If face to face transactions are made a felony, all transactions would have to go through a centralized system, under Federal scrutiny. If all firearm transfers are required to go through an FFL, ALL updated personal information of the buyer, seller and firearm being transferred will be collected. This would happen for each and every transfer. If provisions are not made that will limit the amount of time that records of said transaction may be kept on file, they could be held indefinitely, and that would add up to a impromptu registration system.

Also, what exact criteria will be used too pass/fail an individual? Will the Federal Government be able to change said criteria in the future? Will a past history of antidepressant treatment disqualify you? Will going through civil court such as divorce proceedings disqualify you for the time being?

Remember arbitrary no-fly lists? Could there be no-gun buy lists? What will get a person on that list? If you are on the no-fly list, will you be on the no-gun list?

It could go very bad if the Law leaves to many parameters open ended, up to the Executive's or other Government Bureaucracy's discretion. A universal mandatory background check is in essence a licensing apparatus to exercise a Constitutional Right. You must seek approval for each and every gun you buy.
So, the proposed Universal Background Check is different from what is done at a gun shop now? Why couldn't the same procedure as the LGS uses now be available for private sales? I don't understand the objection.

Blakenzy

January 26, 2013, 06:13 PM

Who is to say it will be the exact same thing done at a gun shop these days?

My point is, a new Universal Background Check Law presented in the current political climate could contain anything. Before I am for or against it I must see the exact wording in the legislation. Whether I support it or not is highly conditional. The concept of a mandatory universal background check lends itself to potential abuse.

Bartholomew Roberts

January 26, 2013, 06:20 PM

The current background check system is specifically forbidden to be used as a form of "registration." However, while a registry of gun owners is forbidden. The current administration appears to be arguing that its "database of gun sales" is not the same thing.

In addition, among the proposals currently on the table are proposals to keep information on all legitimate sales up to a year, allow all 4473 information held by ATF to be computerized and stored in a centralized database (which is effectively registration).

bowserb, you can familiarize yourself with how the existing background check system works here: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

The information is a bit dated; but describes the process in general.

One objection to a universal background check is that Department of Justice studies show the two most common avenues of how felons acquire handguns (totalling over 75% IIRC) are:

A universal background check doesn't do anything to either of those avenues.

However, my primary objection is that in order to have a negotiation, you must first believe the other party is dealing in good faith and I do not believe that is the case. The people who are demanding universal background checks have been open and honest about wanting to take semi-automatics, .50 cal rifles, .30-30 ammunition, handguns and any magazine over 9 rounds from us. In New York, they actually proposed door-to-door confiscation of legally acquired rifles as part of the recent ban there.

Now some are proposing as a compromise, we just agree to tell these same people where all those rifles are and who owns them. I don't see anything good coming out of that - certainly not on a level that would outweigh the inherent risk there. And even if we did believe the current people were dealing in good faith, what about those 20 years from now?

And all of this to adopt a system that our neighbor to the north just abandoned because it was costly and inefficient in solving or preventing crime.

bowserb

January 26, 2013, 06:23 PM

Who is to say it will be the exact same thing done at a gun shop these days?
My point is, a new Universal Background Check Law presented in the current political climate could contain anything. Before I am for or against it I must see the exact wording in the legislation. Whether I support it or not is highly conditional. The concept of a mandatory universal background check lends itself to potential abuse.
OK. I was under the mistaken assumption that the UCB was to be just an extension of the existing instant background check done by dealers. If this is a proposed new system, then my position absolutely NO. Thanks for clearing it up.

Now I'm only OK with giving up rocket launchers and belt fed semiautos.

bushmaster1313

January 26, 2013, 07:24 PM

1. Slippery slope

2. "I am against any gun control"

3. Could lead to registration

4. "If those @#$%$'s are for it I am against it.

* * *
Personally, I do not think it a bad thing as long as it is quick, easy and cheap (Like Bill Clinton's girlfriends)
Note, the New Jersey system has been backlogged recently to the point of preventing the exercise of the right to purchase and keep a gun n the home.
(I know the RTKBA is broader, but the backlog infringes even the most narrow right)

Solo

January 26, 2013, 07:28 PM

5. Only FFLs can use NICS. This means you have to route any private transfers through a middleman who might not be nearby, and who might charge exorbitant rates.

splattergun

January 26, 2013, 07:39 PM

So, the proposed Universal Background Check is different from what is done at a gun shop now? Why couldn't the same procedure as the LGS uses now be available for private sales? I don't understand the objection.
Apply that same logic to your right to assemble, your right to freedom of speech, your right to worship, etc etc.
All fundamental liberties are interrelated. When you weaken one, you weaken them all, even if it is not immediately apparent to the short sighted and fearful.

Spats McGee

January 26, 2013, 07:47 PM

As it currently stands, there is nothing to prevent private parties from trotting down to an LGS, and paying for a transfer to be made, including a NICS check. Requiring universal background checks will do nothing to keep firearms out of the hands of those who really, really don't need guns (violent felons and violent, mentally ill). Violation of the law would be almost impossible to prosecute without full gun registration, so it won't be long before full registration is called for. Even then, I am not convinced that convicted felons could even be prosecuted for failing to get a NICS check done during a transaction. See Haynes v. US., 1968.

abajaj11

January 26, 2013, 07:48 PM

I hope this is the right forum. I get Legal and Activism mixed up as to which to use for gun control. Anyway,

It seems to me that Universal Background Checks should be something to allow to happen--with one modification, that being not required for immediate family. Presumably, if you know your son needs treatment for bipolar disorder or chronic depression, you're not going to give him your AR! Other than that, I don't object to a background check. I'm not a busy buyer/seller of guns, but about a year ago I sold my G19 to a guy I know fairly well...at least I think I do. I don't really know his whole history, though, and even though I'm pretty comfortable that I sold that Glock to a good guy, I could still take comfort in a background check. Indeed, I tried to find a local FFL who would do that, but none would.

Could someone explain to me the objection to UBC?

Thanks.
PLease read the thread below very carefully. It should answer a lot of your questions.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=694810&highlight=gun+show+loophole

gbran

January 26, 2013, 07:52 PM

The current background check system is specifically forbidden to be used as a form of "registration." However, while a registry of gun owners is forbidden. The current administration appears to be arguing that its "database of gun sales" is not the same thing.

While we don't tecnically have registration at the federal level, we see a lot tracing done after certain high profile crimes.

Lost Sheep

January 26, 2013, 07:59 PM

Criminals don't get back ground checks; they don't buy guns legally so back ground checks are pointless.

Why impose more limitations on law abiding citizens?
Criminals who have not been caught yet can pass a background check easily and thus purchase guns legally (except for lying on the form, for which there is no check and darned few prosecutions).

Of course, this most recent push for gun control is not about criminals. None of the past year's mass shootings were done by UBC prohibited persons.

You ask why? Gun control is not about guns so much as it is about control.

Lost Sheep

Old Fuff

January 26, 2013, 08:09 PM

bowserb ask a good question, and he deserves a good answer.

Many potential sellers would like to be able to make a background checks on an interested buyer, but unfortunately the mainstream media and backers of the proposal do not explain what they have in mind.

The present law allows only FFL dealers, distributors and manufacturers to use the NICS system to make background checks, and they can only do so when they are transfering a firearm to someone who isn't licensed (read that to usually mean a retail buyer). Any dealer/distributor/manufacturer that uses the system in any other context is subject to a a civil fine up to $10,000.

What you are (or were) thinking was that you could pick up a phone, call a number, give whoever answers some details about the buyer such as; name, address, age, driver's license number, S.S. number, etc - and then in a few minutes get a go or no-go answer.

What they have in mind is that you and the buyer cannot deal directly, but have to go to an FFL to handle the transaction. The dealer would have to enter the gun(s) into their "bound book" and then have the buyer fill out a #4473 form, after which they could call in to get a background check. If the buyer was rejected you would have to fill out a form #4473 and go through a background check to get your own gun(s) back! For this service the dealer could charge any fee they wanted to. With no limit I would expect the fee to be at least $25.00 and $100.00 isn't out of the question, even if the deal fell through.

Again I will point out that the advocates pushing for Universal Background Checks have never mentioned a word about how the mandated checks would actually be made.

If I were you I'd be very upset. :mad:

suemarkp

January 26, 2013, 08:16 PM

A problem for me is I always get a NICS delay (criminals use a lot of aliases). What will the seller do if it comes back "delay" instead of "proceed"? Do I need to come back after 3 business days (could be a pain if we don't live close)? How do you do transactions outside of normal NICS hours? What do you do if NICS is down?

I'd like there to be background check tools available (for guns and other things), but most of the implementations have problems. I feel fine if I sell to a person with a concealed pistol license -- I know they are good.

tyeo098

January 26, 2013, 08:17 PM

What takes a 'couple minutes' for you takes me 5-7 days.
I've had my CCW for over a year now, and I still get delayed ALMOST A WEEK whenever I buy a gun online or from a shop. Tell me how thats fair. All because I have a common name.

A right delayed is a right denied. And for you to throw me under the bus for some 'feel good' measure that you're expecting criminals to follow, well that just isn't cool.

Not to mention days like Black Friday and post-Newton when NICS SHUTS DOWN because of overload.
The nobody can do any transfer. Imagine if all of a sudden they had a huge influx of requests? The whole system would collapse, no transfers allowed, de facto gun ban.

Making it 'available' is one thing that should be looked at, i.e an NICS number that us regular folk can call if we so desire. Making it required will be the doom of us all.

abajaj11

January 26, 2013, 08:30 PM

There is a Critical difference between ALLOWING ANYONE to make a NICS check, and MANDATING THAT EVERYONE make a NICS check.

Allowing anyone to make a NICs check is a good thing.

MANDATING that everyone make a NICS check is a pathway to registration, since the only way to monitor if this law is being followed would be to find out who owns what in advance. If a NICS check were mandated, POTUS and Mr. Holder will run with it and issue all sorts of executive orders and rulings that will result in de facto registration, in my opinion.

We need to be careful, IMHO, to distinguish between ALLOWING anyone who wants to be able do a NICs check (GOOD), and MANDATING that ALL sales and transfers MUST go through a NICS check (BAD).
Of course I am against any expansion of NICs because it will eventually lead to mandating that everyone use it.
But this seems to be a difference of which we should be aware.
:)

Cosmoline

January 26, 2013, 08:34 PM

If a NICS check were mandated, POTUS and Mr. Holder will run with it and issue all sorts of executive orders and rulings that will result in de facto registration, in my opinion.

They absolutely hope to do this. So the question before us, and it appears the single biggest question to come out of this fracas, is whether to grab bull by horns and have the GOP and gun-friendly Dems draft the bill and eat the poison now or risk something drafted by Schumer & company and rammed through if the D's take the House in the next mid-terms. Not a good choice at all. It does look like that's where we're headed though. I suppose on the plus side, this would mean Dianne and the mag ban getting tossed overboard. Is the humor of that worth the pain of ending FTF sales? Can we trust the feds over the long term, even if the bill outlaws record keeping? Do we have a choice?

This is the Big Crunch folks.

jgh4445

January 26, 2013, 08:40 PM

Should we not also do a check on the seller? Is he/she allowed to own and sell a gun? How the gun itself? Is it stolen? Who pays for all these checks. A background check is only good until the guy/gal leaves your sight.

abajaj11

January 26, 2013, 08:45 PM

They absolutely hope to do this. So the question before us, and it appears the single biggest question to come out of this fracas, is whether to grab bull by horns and have the GOP and gun-friendly Dems draft the bill and eat the poison now or risk something drafted by Schumer & company and rammed through if the D's take the House in the next mid-terms. Not a good choice at all. It does look like that's where we're headed though. I suppose on the plus side, this would mean Dianne and the mag ban getting tossed overboard. Is the humor of that worth the pain of ending FTF sales? Can we trust the feds over the long term, even if the bill outlaws record keeping? Do we have a choice?

This is the Big Crunch folks.
IMHO, NOT one inch.
Give them not one inch.
We can't concede an inch of ground in the hopes that the anti-s will then play nice.
They will always have draconian bills up their sleeve.
Our best hope is the NRA, GOA and SAF...we ALL need to belong to them, make contributions to them,
and then NOT YIELD ONE INCH. Big contributions to the NRA will result in all anti-2As on BOTH sides getting thrashed in the next election. And they know it. 1994 is still fresh in their minds.
We can win this easily if we stick together.

See operation gun rights if you are not part of it already:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=694966&highlight=operation+gun+rights

Remember, many Dems are terrified of the NRA as well. Especially the more moderate Dems. Some of them are even pro-2A.
We cannot yield even one inch, or we will be enslaved.
:)

Ole Humpback

January 26, 2013, 08:46 PM

I hate to ask this as I feel that this would be de facto registration, but what if they didn't change one thing about the NICS system as it is and made one tiny change to who can get an FFL?

Instead of applying for a full-fledged Type 1 FFL, why not add a "Type 4 - Personal" FFL to the list (ie something that only an individual doing FTF transfers would need)? Make it something that is stupid easy to get (ie you only need a state issued photo id with current address and your SSN to apply for one and it costs $25) and that only a full fledged FFL could provide (ie you have to go to the LGS to get & send the application form) and finally have this card be voluntary.

That way when you call into NICS, you can rattle off your own FFL number and request a check on the person you're doing the deal with.

However; the problem I see with allowing for a more widely used and limited form of FFL is that the gov't could make obtaining that new FFL darn near impossible. Couple that with a mandatory NICS check and you have just killed FTF transfers for good.

AlexanderA

January 26, 2013, 08:47 PM

Old Fuff wrote:

What you are (or were) thinking was that you could pick up a phone, call a number, give whoever answers some details about the buyer such as; name, address, age, driver's license number, S.S. number, etc - and then in a few minutes get a go or no-go answer.

What they have in mind is that you and the buyer cannot deal directly, but have to go to an FFL to handle the transaction. ...

If you want to have a NICS check done under the current setup, it's true that you have to go through an FFL. But new legislation could provide for a completely different system for FTF non-licensee sales, more resembling the first paragraph above.

The problem, as I see it, is that the decision of the gun community to stonewall this proposal precludes meaningful input that would make it more acceptable. So, if it passes, it will likely be in the most draconian form desired by the antigunners.

Stonewalling would be a good tactic if there was an overwhelming chance that nothing would pass. But it's looking more and more like we're going to get some form of Universal Background Check this year. I sure hope the NRA and the other gun owners' organizations have the flexibility to quickly move from a "stonewalling" stance to an "input" stance if that appears to be necessary. But, as we saw in 1986 with FOPA and the last-minute Hughes Amendment, the NRA has the maneuverability of the Titanic.

abajaj11

January 26, 2013, 08:57 PM

Old Fuff wrote:

If you want to have a NICS check done under the current setup, it's true that you have to go through an FFL. But new legislation could provide for a completely different system for FTF non-licensee sales, more resembling the first paragraph above.

The problem, as I see it, is that the decision of the gun community to stonewall this proposal precludes meaningful input that would make it more acceptable. So, if it passes, it will likely be in the most draconian form desired by the antigunners.

Stonewalling would be a good tactic if there was an overwhelming chance that nothing would pass. But it's looking more and more like we're going to get some form of Universal Background Check this year. I sure hope the NRA and the other gun owners' organizations have the flexibility to quickly move from a "stonewalling" stance to an "input" stance if that appears to be necessary. But, as we saw in 1986 with FOPA and the last-minute Hughes Amendment, the NRA has the maneuverability of the Titanic.
The leadership of the NRA is completely different now. They may be a different organization and very agile. I have been very happy with La Pierre's responses and outspoken-ness, and even more so with Pratt (of GOA).
We have made a lot of progress since 1986, and now we also have social media that allows us to communicate quickly and with more people.

I beg to differ with you. I don't see the point of caving in even one bit...it is not looking likely to me AT all there will be a UBC...it's just the media playing tricks as usual, and making us THINK that its passage is an inevitability.

We can win this if we stick together. PLease become part of operation gun rights if you are not already:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=694966&highlight=operation+gun+rights

:)

oneounceload

January 26, 2013, 09:04 PM

Other than that, I don't object to a background check.

Let's do a check on car buyers, as drunk drivers kill more folks than guns.....or a background check on folks who own knives - no garage sales without a check, because knives kill more folks than guns.....let alone bats, blunt objects, etc...........

We never had these issues when kids brought guns to school or you could order anything from the back of a magazine without a FFL

THOSE WHO DO NOT STUDY HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

Why are folks "willing" to give up even more of their rights?

CIVICS needs to be brought back into the schools

CaptHank

January 26, 2013, 09:10 PM

"We never had these issues when kids brought guns to school or you could order anything from the back of a magazine without a FFL."

So true.... I bought my first handgun from an ad in the back of Outdoor Life. Brand new Browning 32acp, packed in cosmoline.

Ole Humpback

January 26, 2013, 09:28 PM

When I was going through HS in the early 2000's, I was a member of the HS Trap & Skeet team and our school actually had a gun cage because the team had almost 100 students on it. We never had any problems with firearms at my school.

However; we did have one very big problem right after 9/11 happened during the time the mailed anthrax letters were going around. Some kid actually managed to get his/her hands on a powder that was nearly identical to the carrier powder used to spread anthrax. The kid spread some of it around the band room prior to a lock down drill. During the drill, school staff found it and we went into lock down. I remember being escorted out of school by members of the sheriffs SWAT team and seeing our school on the evening news chopper feed as the FBI, CDC, DEA, ATF, and several other three letter agencies in hazmat suites swept our HS for hours on end to verify that we hadn't been hit with a bioweapon. Talk about an exciting/terrifying experience.

Cosmoline

January 26, 2013, 09:48 PM

IMHO, NOT one inch.

Great, except look at the state of the GOP. I'm not terribly confident in what's going to happen in 2014 or 2016. I'm absolutely against any concessions on any gun or magazine ownership. But this is the background check we've been living with more-or-less without troubles for years now. It's far harder to argue against without sounding paranoid. I totally share your concerns, but then again this could be an opportunity to redirect the focus away from the fixation on gun seizures and bans.

Put it another way--is the lack of a registration system truly the thing standing between us and mass confiscation? Or is the thing preventing this political pressure from voters? If it's the latter, then we do need to be careful not to take such a hard line that we miss an opportunity to do an end-run around the grabbers. And if we don't take this chance to control the future of gun control, we could also be alienating a lot of people. The polls typically show mixed results on the AWB, but not on NICS expansion. That's consistently popular even with many ardent gun owners.

Tough choices here. We all need to be watching Coburn in particular like hawks.

bowserb

January 26, 2013, 09:58 PM

The option to use the NICS would be good. You have an 800 number or website where you may check a prospective buyer out at no charge or a nominal fee like $7.50. I would like to be able to do that before I sell a stranger my gun—a gun that my dealer’s bound book says was sold to me, so the last "official" owner of that gun was me. I'll bet some others might like that as well. Of course, if checking were mandatory, it could save some ruffled feathers ("I'm sorry, Mack. It's nothing personal. The law says I have to check.")

Checking on a SELLER via low cost NICS would be nice too. I hadn't thought of it since I've only bought from licensed FFLs.

I'm still willing to give up rocket launchers, although I'm beginning to think I might like to keep my belt fed semiauto.

Old Fuff

January 26, 2013, 10:13 PM

If you want to have a NICS check done under the current setup, it's true that you have to go through an FFL. But new legislation could provide for a completely different system for FTF non-licensee sales, more resembling the first paragraph above.

Those behind Universal Background Checks on the ones who are writing the bills, and they do not want a reasonable system! They want to force all private sellers and buyers to go through an FFL.

Wake up, and get a copy of the bill(s) and read them. :banghead:

bowserb

January 26, 2013, 10:17 PM

Those behind Universal Background Checks on the ones who are writing the bills, and they do not want a reasonable system! They want to force all private sellers and buyers to go through an FFL. Wake up, and get a copy of the bill(s) and read them. :banghead:OK OK I withdraw the question. Even the Democrats don't insult me by saying "Wake up." ...no need to reply "Old Fuff". I'm turning of notification on this thread!

Lost Sheep

January 27, 2013, 02:10 AM

There is a difference between the right to reproduce, to publish on a forum or in print or on a streetcorner or to vote and the right to bear arms.

Mis-use of arms can result in instant death to innocent people with no recourse to right any wrong done. Those other rights, if mis-used may result in wrongs, but there is a least the CHANCE of the wrong being righted. Death is always irreversible.

So, the anti-gunners have that argument sewn up. We ignore it at our peril.

Lost Sheep

Shadow 7D

January 27, 2013, 03:17 AM

Considering that the ATF has been databasing NICS data for the last 18 years
that when the come looking on a trace, with a person targeted they know WHEN he bought

the thing is, they claim it's legal cause the don't know specifically what you bought (unless it's 4 or more handguns unless than 2 weeks.)

Sooo
if they are breaking the law NOW
what makes you think any increase is a good thing?

NWCP

January 27, 2013, 06:07 AM

When selling to a private party, and I sell very infrequently, my purchaser is either a member of my gun club, or has a valid CPL. The government already has a ton of information on me and fellow shooters. Being retired military and having purchased many weapons through gun shops They know who I am, what my training background is and the majority of the guns I own. I'm not keen on the idea of background checks except for a couple of real benefits.

If information is properly shared between agencies the check would catch felons, drug abusers and the mentally unstable members of our society. Taking my firearms will not make you any safer on the streets. Keeping them out of the hands of the above mentioned social miscreants will. I'm also a strong believer in gun safes... real gun safes, not thin skinned cabinets that have a padlock.

JRH6856

January 27, 2013, 06:52 AM

If they want universal background checks, this would be my compromise:

2. It shall be the seller's responsibility to perform the background check. For this purpose, the NICS system shall be open to the public

3. The only information disclosed during a background check shall be that necessary to identify the buyer. No information regarding the fiream(s) invovled may be required or collected.

4. Seller will receive a unique number identifying the background check performed.

a. This UBCID# shall be permanently recorded ny the NICS system.

b. The UBCID number will be entered on a bill of sale which identifies the firearm by description and serial number.

1) Seller will retain a copy of the bill of sale for 1 year.

2) Buyer will retain a copy until one year after the firearms is sold.

5. Since anyone can perform the backgound check and verify the qualifications of a buyer, a FFL is no longer required to buy, sell, ship of receive firearms in interstate commerce.

mister_murphy

January 27, 2013, 10:30 AM

So, for the folks who want NICS to be opened up to the public...What to say a person would not lie, or be untruethful on who they are selling the firearm to for the background check? Afterall, If NICS is free to the public, there will be no way to know, will there? You could fake a receipt that says "yep, I sold this firearm to John Doe on this date, here is the NICS number" when you really sold it a prohibited person.

With universal background checks, it still wont prevent anything.

michaelbsc

January 27, 2013, 11:13 AM

While all of the "opening up the NCIS" talk sounds good, implementing it is going to be completely impossible. Completely!

It's classic bait an switch I've decided. Any time they start trotting out some pretty phrase like that, then look out.

niner4tango

January 27, 2013, 11:41 AM

Let's do a check on car buyers, as drunk drivers kill more folks than guns.....or a background check on folks who own knives - no garage sales without a check, because knives kill more folks than guns.....let alone bats, blunt objects, etc...........

We never had these issues when kids brought guns to school or you could order anything from the back of a magazine without a FFL

THOSE WHO DO NOT STUDY HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

Why are folks "willing" to give up even more of their rights?

CIVICS needs to be brought back into the schools

oneounceload nailed it, every sentence is true.

The anti-gun propaganda has been so effective that even people in the gun culture appear willing to give up more rights. :(

palmrose2

January 27, 2013, 11:42 AM

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm really a wild west kind of guy and am not in favor of ANY new restrictions.

One of the things that some of you aren't aware of is the fact that not all instant back ground checks are instant. I've bought 3 guns from dealers. Twice, I've had to come back later. Like days later. Apparently there is some glitch that basically says that the system doesn't like me so they can't sell me a firearm today, but if there is no further action from the feds, I can pick it up in a week. Wouldn't that be a fun thing to deal with while trying to settle a private party sale.

There are to many infringements now. There is no reason to budge another inch.

highlander 5

January 27, 2013, 12:01 PM

Something that hasn't been mentioned here is the unlimited axcees to your medical history by the goverment. Let's say you were put on anti depressents after a death of a loved one,will that preclude you from buying a firearm as it could be construde as a mental disorder even though you will have been on them for a short time. Or maybe you don't have 20/20 eyesight or any of a miriad of possible disqualifiers added by the government at their discretion. How does the saying go "no one's life,liberty or income is safe while Congress is in session." or something to that effect.

Old Fuff

January 27, 2013, 12:04 PM

OK OK I withdraw the question. Even the Democrats don't insult me by saying "Wake up." ...no need to reply "Old Fuff". I'm turning of notification on this thread!

It is not my intention insult anyone, but wouldn’t it be advisable to read the bill now before the Senate (S.22) to see what is actually proposed, rather then alternatives that are not under consideration, and aren’t likely to be.

1 ‘‘(c) RESPONSIBILITIES OF TRANSFERORS OTHER
2 THAN LICENSEES.

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to another person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless the firearm is transferred through a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in accord with subsection (e).

S.22 is the so-called “Gun Show Loophole” bill that was recently reintroduced by:

Who without exception have reputations of being strong supporters of the most extreme firearms’ control legislation.

Following its introduction S.22 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where it now rests.

Now it has been suggested that this bill should be expanded to include ALL PRIVATE TRANSFERS using the procedure originally stated.

Discussion of alternative procedures being proposed on this thread are not under consideration – in particular ones where individual unlicensed (meaning non-FFL’s) can make they’re own background checks.

It should be clearly understood that the Senators behind the Universal Background Check proposal have never suggested that non-FFL’s should be allowed to make they’re own background checks.

There is an old saying that applies here: Be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

AlexanderA

January 27, 2013, 02:22 PM

The way I read the tea leaves, there's going to be a total ban on private sales (all transactions will have to go through FFL's for the "background check"), unless we make a strong push right now to open up NICS to private sellers. There are many in Congress who would vote to open up NICS to private, non-licensed sellers, even on a quasi-voluntary basis, but who would vote for the more stringent bill if the alternative wasn't on the table.

Deanimator

January 27, 2013, 02:40 PM

Without REGISTRATION, the so-called "universal background check" is utterly meaningless.

Registration has no real purpose apart from facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

The answer yet again is, "NO, I REFUSE."

Deanimator

January 27, 2013, 02:44 PM

The problem, as I see it, is that the decision of the gun community to stonewall this proposal precludes meaningful input that would make it more acceptable. So, if it passes, it will likely be in the most draconian form desired by the antigunners.
The only "input" the other side wants is abject submission.

NO, I REFUSE.

JohnBT

January 27, 2013, 04:20 PM

"Mis-use of arms can result in instant death to innocent people "

Misuse of cars can also. Misuse of texting while driving compounds the threat to the innocent. Misuse of alcohol. Misuse of prescription drugs. Misuse of fertilizer and fuel oil. Where are the background checks?

The list is long of objects that be misused and result in the death of others.

hogshead

January 27, 2013, 04:47 PM

Without REGISTRATION, the so-called "universal background check" is utterly meaningless.

Registration has no real purpose apart from facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

The answer yet again is, "NO, I REFUSE."
__________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This. If they dont register the guns how would they know if private party sales were even going on. All you would have to do is say I owned this gun before ubc was required. I can't believe how many gun owners are falling for this load of crap.

michaelbsc

January 27, 2013, 05:43 PM

The way I read the tea leaves, there's going to be a total ban on private sales (all transactions will have to go through FFL's for the "background check"), unless we make a strong push right now to open up NICS to private sellers.

I don't see the NICS being opened to private individuals.

As I mentioned earlier, so far as I'm concerned it's a mechanism to ban private sales via the back door.

Maybe it will take a while. But only a moron thinks his social security number isn't an identification number these days.

DJW

January 27, 2013, 06:01 PM

How about a voting record check? If seller, buyer, and all family members did not vote for obama then the $100 each of you paid for the check goes directly to the democratic party and you all go to gitmo forever! Plus, your residence gets searched and anything of value found gets sent to the coffers of said gov't. Same for any financial assets, real estate, or whatever the obama youth leaders want. It is coming, they need our goods to handle this deficit spending.

mister_murphy

January 27, 2013, 06:49 PM

I, also dont see NICS being opened up to be used by the public. NICS was set up to use the FFL holders, which provides a level of accountability, in that the BATFE/FBI know who the dealer is/their address/etc.

If NICS were opened up to public use, I dont see anyway to have any reasonable level of accountability. It would be way to easy "fake" the sale by using another persons identity as the buyer instead of the actual buyer.

Aftall, if universal background checks are passed, there will probably be a record keeping portion to, akin to the FFL keeping the 4473 form for 20 years. For those who do support universal background checks, why not push for pure registration?

Another issue to is cost. If its going to have to go through a FFL, and say they charge $50, and I am trying to sell you an old Sears shotgun or .22 for $75 bucks. Then it starts getting close to the cost of buying a new shotgun or .22 such as a Maverick/Pardner, or for .22 there are several Marlins that are a few bucks more. So in the end, the lower end used guns will just be tossed aside, or, umm, sold without a check, cause who else would pay more for a well used (non-collector) firearm when they could get a new one for $25 or $50 more?

abajaj11

January 27, 2013, 11:51 PM

If they want universal background checks, this would be my compromise:

2. It shall be the seller's responsibility to perform the background check. For this purpose, the NICS system shall be open to the public

3. The only information disclosed during a background check shall be that necessary to identify the buyer. No information regarding the fiream(s) invovled may be required or collected.

4. Seller will receive a unique number identifying the background check performed.

a. This UBCID# shall be permanently recorded ny the NICS system.

b. The UBCID number will be entered on a bill of sale which identifies the firearm by description and serial number.

1) Seller will retain a copy of the bill of sale for 1 year.

2) Buyer will retain a copy until one year after the firearms is sold.

5. Since anyone can perform the backgound check and verify the qualifications of a buyer, a FFL is no longer required to buy, sell, ship of receive firearms in interstate commerce.
Suppose you sold a gun under this system. And did not keep any record of it. And teh buyer did not keep any record of it. And the BATFE asked him 6 months later. he could always say he bought the gun more than a year earlier and no longer has a record of it. Since the BATFE had no idea who owned it before, they would have no way to monitor if he were following this 1 year law or not.
The only way they can monitor it is to know who owns what....a national registry.
:)

Old Fuff

January 28, 2013, 10:30 AM

Once again:

See post #44

Those in the Senate who are pushing for Universal Background Checks are not interested in any compromises. They believe (correctly) that the general public is behind the idea, and our own firearms community is split on this issue - as posts on this thread show. What we want is immaterial. What we will accept or not doesn't matter.

If Universal Background Checks do become the law-of-the-land they will not be in the form of a system where individuals can make checks themselves. They will simply and easily (for them, not us) require that all private transfers be made through a Federally Licensed Dealer.

If they can divide us on this issue they will win. If we unite and fight they may not.

DJW

January 28, 2013, 10:39 AM

I agree that this is a critical issue. There are many tricks and traps involved. If this is not very carefully scrutinized it may be the foundation for registration/confiscation. The left wants our guns, make no mistake about it.
In reality, how could an additional background check have prevented any of the madness in the schools? It would not and could not.
We have already submitted to checks when buying anything from an FFL. Hell, they have my background and prints from my CHL for many years already.
The problem is all the drugs so freely handed out by big pharma and doctors who think meds will solve mental health issues.......which they will NOT. Perhaps if there was such a thing as a "family" and some respect for civilized behavior the problem would evaporate.

xfyrfiter

January 28, 2013, 03:50 PM

Heard a blurb on the local news program this AM, that NM is pushing for UBC, would entail staffing 7 days from 0700-2200, I'm thinking that the cost of adding that burden to an already overworked, and understaffed, dept. would be the straw that causes non issue. Hearing at the merry round house this afternoon.

Cosmoline

January 28, 2013, 04:35 PM

Costs vs. benefits are one argument. But the polls suggest that UBC's are quite popular. Really the only piece of gun control that enjoys broad popularity. And complaining about the costs could easily lead to an excise tax to pay for the thing.

IIRC the NRA SUPPORTED the creation of NICS. So it's hard for them to argue against expanding it. And so far they really haven't put much energy into it. The idea was that by controlling transfers we could shift the focus away from gun bans.

There has to be a better argument than "they will use it as registration." They haven't so far. Nor do their ideas for the AWB seem to be getting much traction outside of a few notoriously anti-gun states.

JRH6856

January 28, 2013, 05:34 PM

Suppose you sold a gun under this system. And did not keep any record of it. And teh buyer did not keep any record of it. And the BATFE asked him 6 months later. he could always say he bought the gun more than a year earlier and no longer has a record of it. Since the BATFE had no idea who owned it before, they would have no way to monitor if he were following this 1 year law or not.
The only way they can monitor it is to know who owns what....a national registry.
:)

I said it was my compromise. Compromise means both sides concede something. My concession is to allow UBCs. Theirs? Well, they don't get a registry. Of course, as you point out, there may be "unintended consequences". :uhoh: But what you describe would only apply to weapons made before the law went into effect.

Deanimator

January 28, 2013, 10:40 PM

There has to be a better argument than "they will use it as registration." They haven't so far.
Chicago didn't use registration to ban ownership of new handguns.

...UNTIL THEY DID.

You're high on bath salts if you think that the other side can be trusted as far as you can throw Rosie O'Donnell and a boxcar full of bags of hammers.

abajaj11

January 28, 2013, 10:44 PM

I said it was my compromise. Compromise means both sides concede something. My concession is to allow UBCs. Theirs? Well, they don't get a registry. Of course, as you point out, there may be "unintended consequences". :uhoh: But what you describe would only apply to weapons made before the law went into effect.
there are 300 million+ unregistered weapons in this country right now.
would they all be exempted from this law?
:)

Shadow 7D

January 29, 2013, 07:53 AM

I said it was my compromise. Compromise means both sides concede something. My concession is to allow UBCs. Theirs? Well, they don't get a registry. Of course, as you point out, there may be "unintended consequences". :uhoh: But what you describe would only apply to weapons made before the law went into effect.
It's a LOSE/LOSE/LOSE situation
you win and everything is the same,
-------- you lose cause then the demon-crates yell "the NRA is arming criminal and not letting us fix it" - actual line my brother used on me, and when I TRIED to explain it, well...

LOSE, give an inch, they take the mile and beat us up cause
------"Gunowners are standing in the way of meaningful (read complete gun ban) reform"

they win, and we lose everything.

NOW tell me, where is the compromise?
considering that procecution of felons in possession, and those providing them guns is DOWN by at least a 1/3 under obama

alsaqr

January 29, 2013, 08:24 AM

I said it was my compromise. Compromise means both sides concede something. My concession is to allow UBCs. \

Law abiding gunowners have been "conceding something" since 1934. What did we ever receive in return? Does anyone remember Chuckie Schumer gloating after the AWB was passed: "Wait until you see the rest of the camel"? Its a federal felony for a convicted felon to attempt to buy a gun: This administration and others have steadfastly refused to do prosecute felons who attempt to buy guns.

You simply cannot compromise with those who would take your Second Amendment rights away. They will keep coming back until you are unarmed.

JRH6856

January 29, 2013, 09:16 AM

Exempt from what? The law would not affect them one way or another until they were sold or transferred to another individual. We have to trust our citizens to be responsible and law abiding members of the community and perform the background check. (Yes, the seller could forgo the check and the new owner could claim that he had always owned the weapon, and that would be a prosecutable offense...if they were caught.

As to the other arguments from Shadow and alsaqr, I'm not putting it forth as a proposal, but as a response. IF they insist on compromise, there is one I will accept. To spell it out, Yes, any compromise regarding a right is a loss. I know that. But IF faced with a loss I can't prevent, I will try to get something in return. That is compromise. That is a big "if" and I don't think we are there yet.

Shadow, I don't care how much they yell about arming criminals. If they agree to the compromise, then they are complicit. And as I have hinted, the UBC is easily avoided if both parties agree to do so and take the risk of getting caught after a year. The only thing it really combats is straw purchases.

My personal position, stated publicly on other forums as well is that the line drawn by the 2A was crossed long ago. I'm not willing to go any farther, I'm seeking ways to get back to where we should be. Slippery slopes can work both ways.

Old Fuff

January 29, 2013, 09:57 AM

Ah... What do you do if the other side isn't interested in your compromise? Looking at it from their perspective, if the pro-gun side is split on the issue why not take advantage of that fact, and force all legal transfers be made through an FFL? They aren't going so suffer because of the additional hassle and fees, and criminals/prohibited persons will ignore it.

michaelbsc

January 29, 2013, 10:34 AM

One thing I point out to people about the supposed "Common Sense Legislation ..." bill when they try to tout that it makes it a "federal crime to traffic guns" is that it is *ALREADY A FEDERAL CRIME TO TRAFFIC GUNS.*

Hell, look at the thread I started asking about whether my wife could ship a handgun to me. It's clear that we'd both end up in a federal pen for trafficking our own personal property across state lines. But it's not already a crime for drug dealers to do it?

Some people are morons, but I keep a polite smile anyway.

Spats McGee

January 29, 2013, 10:46 AM

I had a "lightbulb moment" last night that I thought I'd put out there for everyone's consideration. There's been a lot of talk about universal background checks, mandatory background checks, etc. What if there were a way to encourage background checks without mandating them? Don't get me wrong, I still oppose mandatory, universal background checks. I also do not believe that this proposal that I am about to make would fly with any of the hardcore anti-gunners. Still, I think it's worth consideration.

18 U.S.C. § 922 currently reads:
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person . [I]18 U.S.C.A. § 922

As written, one of the key elements is "knowing or having reasonable cause to know" that the transferee is a prohibited person. Note that, under this section, it does not actually matter whether the transferee is a prohibited person. For example, if my ol' fishing buddy Frank Felony has "convicted murderer" tattooed on his forehead, I have reasonable cause to know that he is prohibited, at least arguably. Even if he is not, in fact, a convicted murderer, a US Attorney could make a decent argument that I had "reasonable cause to know" that Frank is prohibited, even if he is not.

What if the following section were added to 18 U.S.C. § 922?
It shall be an absolute bar to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) that, prior to the transfer of any firearm or ammunition, the transferor caused to be conducted a background check with respect to the transferee, which background check complies with 18 U.S.C. § 922(t).[Spats Note: There may be other language that would need to be added to include other applicable law besides 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)]

For those of you in support of universal background checks, would this be palatable? It seems to me that it would provide some concrete incentive for tranferors to use background checks (a bar to prosecution), without mandating them.

JRH6856

January 29, 2013, 11:37 AM

Fuff, If the other side doesn't like my compromise then we do the same as when I don't like theirs: look for another and try to come out ahead.

Spats, I think your idea is more palatable than most. Part of the responsibility of owning a firearm is handling it properly, and I think that includes transferring it properly. That means to not "sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person [is a prohibited person]."

The bigger question is how do you keep a record of who was checked from becoming the basis of a list of who might have a firearm and still maintain a record that can be used as evidence of due diligence in court?

Cosmoline

January 29, 2013, 12:53 PM

You're high on bath salts if you think that the other side can be trusted as far as you can throw Rosie O'Donnell and a boxcar full of bags of hammers.

No question, but then again what if this is an opportunity to steal their thunder and refocus gun control away from bans entirely?

I'm also not convinced that BC's are pointless. The fact of the matter is I don't sell FTF unless I have some basis of trust with the person. I don't want to sell to nutcases or felons. And I'm not sure I want YOU to sell to nutcases or felons. Does the Constitution give us the right to sell to anybody? No, certainly not. Selling, at least outside the family, is not a purely private act. It's not something in the sanctum sanctorum of the gun safe. It's taking the firearm out into the public, where the public's interest in regulating the arm increases. And the transfer itself is subject to UCC rules and protections for buyer and seller.

But on the other hand I see the huge potential for Congress to abuse the system in the future. Where I'm coming down on this is I'd be willing to agree to UBC's if we could get something substantive in return. Like replacing the BATF with a new agency that has a pro-gun ownership mandate.

gc70

January 29, 2013, 02:14 PM

Spats - I like the idea of an incentive, but think it could be refined.

(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person [is to a prohibited person]. 18 U.S.C.A. § 922
It shall be an absolute bar to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) that, prior to the transfer sale or disposal of any firearm or ammunition, the transferor caused to be conducted a background check with respect to the transferee, which background check complies with 18 U.S.C. § 922(t).

The changes: shift 922(d) from a standard of culpability (knowing, etc.) to strict liability
strict liability provides a huge incentive to look for a safe harbor
provide a safe harbor through a voluntary background check
avoid using "transfer" with its potential to cover "temporary transfers of possession"
eliminate "ammunition" - we don't want background checks for ammo

abajaj11

January 29, 2013, 04:57 PM

Exempt from what? The law would not affect them one way or another until they were sold or transferred to another individual. We have to trust our citizens to be responsible and law abiding members of the community and perform the background check. (Yes, the seller could forgo the check and the new owner could claim that he had always owned the weapon, and that would be a prosecutable offense...if they were caught.

As to the other arguments from Shadow and alsaqr, I'm not putting it forth as a proposal, but as a response. IF they insist on compromise, there is one I will accept. To spell it out, Yes, any compromise regarding a right is a loss. I know that. But IF faced with a loss I can't prevent, I will try to get something in return. That is compromise. That is a big "if" and I don't think we are there yet.

Shadow, I don't care how much they yell about arming criminals. If they agree to the compromise, then they are complicit. And as I have hinted, the UBC is easily avoided if both parties agree to do so and take the risk of getting caught after a year. The only thing it really combats is straw purchases.

My personal position, stated publicly on other forums as well is that the line drawn by the 2A was crossed long ago. I'm not willing to go any farther, I'm seeking ways to get back to where we should be. Slippery slopes can work both ways.
they can INSIST on anything they want...in the strongest possible terms. Why should we give them anything? Call your senators and congressman once a week till they are sick of hearing from you...then call again.
Assure them you will work extra hard to support pro 2A legislators, and work extra hard to unseat those who give up ONE inch.
Why compromise at all? You are not going to gain ANYTHING by compromising...they will never go away...
People have been trying to disarm other people and enslave them from time immemorial. Sometimes with superior armies, sometimes through stealth.
There is NO standing army in the world that can disarm 100million + armed people. So they are disarming us one piece at a time. or trying to.
Any compromise you give them makes them one step closer to disarming us.
Don't concede an inch! We can win this easily..
:)

:)

razorback2003

January 29, 2013, 05:09 PM

Most dealers in my area charge 25 to 50 bucks to transfer a firearm. Then you pay 10 dollars to the state of TN for the TICS background check.

Private sales are not the problem. The problem with these mass shootings has been crazy individuals allowed to be in public without proper medication.

JRH6856

January 29, 2013, 09:09 PM

Muad Dib, whatever I might be willing to do, it would be unwise to declare it in advance in a public forum.

Jim K

January 29, 2013, 09:55 PM

What's wrong with a universal background check? Well, there is a small problem, or rather problems.

Here is the real problem. The federal government gets its power to regulate guns primarily from its taxing ability (the FFL fee is a business tax) and its power to regulate interstate commerce.

But a private sale of a product by one person to another person in the same state involves neither taxation or interstate commerce, so it is a matter for the states.

In order to justify background checks on private sales or at gun shows, the government would have to impose a sales tax on all gun transfers, and a tax on gun shows.

That means licensing all private transfers, and licensing and controlling gun shows, with whatever license fee (tax) the government chooses, and whatever regulations it chooses to formulate to control individual sales and gun shows.

Some ideas that have been floated for private sales is something like a Form 4 application to transfer with a tax (one proposal was $50, but of course it would be raised once the law was in effect). An application might take up to a year to process, and would include the make, model and serial number of the gun, reason for the transfer, buyer's fingerprnts, forms allowing search of the seller's and buyer's mental health records, etc.

In order to regulate sales at gun shows, the federal government would have to know when and where gun shows would be held and who would be exhibiting/selling. To do that, gun shows would be licensed and taxed; sponsors would have to apply a year or more in advance to hold a show, all exhibitors would have to be specially licensed to set up at that show (in addition to an FFL), all transactions of everything would have to be reported and taxed, etc. (You don't think they would pass up a chance at more taxes, do you?)

So think a bit before supporting a "simple" background check. Like other "simple" things the government has imposed (like the income tax), it just might not be so "simple".

Jim

Cosmoline

January 30, 2013, 03:08 AM

But a private sale of a product by one person to another person in the same state involves neither taxation or interstate commerce, so it is a matter for the states.

Not since the expansion of the Commerce Clause. It probably SHOULD be a matter for the states, but it isn't. Virtually all modern arms include components imported from other states or nations. So it's not difficult to see how the transfer can be tied to interstate commerce under federal law. Plus they move across state borders very freely.

In order to justify background checks on private sales or at gun shows, the government would have to impose a sales tax on all gun transfers, and a tax on gun shows.

Why would they have to do that? They would simply pass a law making it illegal to transfer firearms without a background check through NICS. With some exceptions for family members, estates, etc.

But in any case it seems Congress has moved on now so we have a breather. I think we need to work on honing our approach to UBC's because this is likely to become the next battleground after Dianne's AWB sinks.

michaelbsc

January 30, 2013, 03:33 AM

Not since the expansion of the Commerce Clause.

Honestly and truly, and we all know I'm not exactly the most conservative guy around here, when we've got a justice on the bench who cannot bring herself to deny that the federal government has the authority to compel citizens to eat three vegetables daily based on the Commerce Clause then there is nothing the Commerce Clause cannot be stretched to do.

I guess this is because air drifts across state borders, and everyone breaths the air.

Spats McGee

January 30, 2013, 11:51 AM

The changes:

shift 922(d) from a standard of culpability (knowing, etc.) to strict liability
strict liability provides a huge incentive to look for a safe harbor
provide a safe harbor through a voluntary background check
avoid using "transfer" with its potential to cover "temporary transfers of possession"
eliminate "ammunition" - we don't want background checks for ammo

Hmm. I don't want to shift 922(d) to a strict liability crime. Agreed on use of the word "transfer."

Shadow 7D

January 31, 2013, 04:05 PM

You are missing a HUGE issue with it
In order to make this effective,

ALL GUN WOULD HAVE TO BE KNOWN
So, in order to know who has guns, and where they are going...
it would either be with registration, or a HUGE step to registration
so, sure compromise
what happens next year when registration is on the books cause they had to 'FIX' the hole in the new law?

mdauben

January 31, 2013, 04:20 PM

I admit, this is one potential "anti-gun" idea currently being pushed that I have a hard time working up any opposition to, other than on the grounds of slipperly slope, "no new laws at all" thinking.

Criminals don't get back ground checks; they don't buy guns legally so back ground checks are pointless.
Yeah, if someone really wants a gun they can probably find a way to get one. Background checks do make it at least a little harder for criminals and mentally unstable individuals to get one. I've heard more than one story from various FFLs about such people getting denied during store checks, so the current system is already doing some good when such people try to buy guns through normal channels.

Not to mention the fact that it is de facto registration, which could ultimately lead to actual registration, would could lead to confiscation.
This seems more like scare mongering than actual fact, unless new laws allowing actual central record keeping are incorporated into the currently pending bills. Currently we are already having background checks for all sales run through a FFL anyway so if they are somehow keeping track (which by law they are not allowed to do) we are already hosed. I know every gun I have ever bought went through an FFL and I would venture to guess there is not a large percentage of gun owners who have never bought a gun through an FFL. If they are going to use background checks to identify and track gun ownership, they already have most of us.

Why impose more limitations on law abiding citizens?
The current NICS check run through FFLs is a relativly trivial inconvenience. Depending on how its implemented, it does not have to be much worse for private transactions.

Again, I'm not necessarily in favor of such expansion to the current laws on background checks, and I'm not sure how much good expanding it will do, but it just seems there are much more important issues that we have to fight against than this one. :uhoh:

HighExpert

January 31, 2013, 05:08 PM

I wonder why they need another background check on me each time I buy a handgun when I have a CCW. They have already done a much more extensive background check on me than would be required to buy the gun so why not just verify my CCW is still valid and let it go at that?

hogshead

January 31, 2013, 05:18 PM

Mdauben Read through this entire post. If you cant see the reasons against a ubc then you are probably a liberal so there is no use to try to explain it to you any further, I am not trying to be mean or hateful.Its just the truth.

JRH6856

January 31, 2013, 05:23 PM

HighExpert, I don't know where you live, but ATF will accept that in many states. It may depend on what the states' requirements are for issuing a CCW.

Here is an idea:

The BATF should accept a CCW/CHL as proof of qualification in lieu of a NICS check.

For those states the do not have permits, and for those persons who do not have them in states that do issue permits. Why not allow volunatary back ground checks prior to purchase? Example:

Texas issues both drivers licenses and picture IDs. Allow anyone to go to a DPS license office and request a NICS check. If the check is clear, place a G code on the license or ID and record the fact that the license/ID is so coded. The person can then display this to any seller as proof of NICS OK.

If a person with such a coded license/ID is ajudicated ineligible for firearms ownership, he/she must surrender the coded ID in exchange for an uncoded one.

Anyone without a CCW/CHL or coded ID would have to go to an FFL for a NICS check.

gc70

January 31, 2013, 07:02 PM

The laws that make up the background check system are not being enforced by the government. The latest year for which the Justice Department has released a report (www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/231052.pdf) (that I could find) was 2008; the report shows the government's stark failure to enforce the law.

5,813,249 background checks (page 4)
70,725 denials - people who are not supposed to be able to have guns (page 4)
147 cases referred for prosecution by ATF (page 7)
43 cases resulting in guilty pleas or verdicts (page 8)

If the current laws are ineffective, first try enforcing those laws. Expanding unenforced laws makes no sense at all.

Old Fuff

January 31, 2013, 07:22 PM

Texas issues both drivers licenses and picture IDs. Allow anyone to go to a DPS license office and request a NICS check.

They may make some kind of background check, but it is not a NICS check. That can only be done by an FFL dealer, destributor or manufacturer - and then only when transfering a firearm to a non-licensed person. Any other use can result in a $10,000 fine.

What is now proposed in Washington is to make all private sales go through an FFL (including fees and a #4473 form). Only after the form has been compleated and signed can the dealer call into NICS for a background check.

No one is contemplating letting individual non-licensed sellers and buyers be able to make their own background checks.

Ryanxia

January 31, 2013, 08:37 PM

In MA this is already law and the dealers charge a minimum of $50 per transfer.

Want to lend a buddy a hunting rifle? $50/3 hour background check (average time at the shops here now {except for my LGS}) to lend it to him for the weekend then the same thing to get it back.

Also, if it's mandatory to go through a dealer, why not charge $500 to transfer a firearm? It's the only way they're going to legally sell/trade/give it. And that one honest FFL that charges nothing or $20 will soon be overwhelmed and have to / want to raise his prices.

And as has been stated it equals registration. Plus that pesky little Second Amendment that says "shall not be infringed". Well if I want to buy a single shot .22 from my buddy and the government won't allow that, that's infringement.

Old Fuff

January 31, 2013, 09:54 PM

The whole thread is meaningless. We do not need any background checks

But an awful lot of legislators see it as an easy out that most voters support, and they want to "do something." Many of our members support the idea, because of a mistaken idea that it will let individual (non licensed) sellers or buyers make they're own background checks. They are in for an unwelcome suprise, and in November 2014 some legislators may get one too.

JRH6856

January 31, 2013, 10:25 PM

Ok, yes, the TxDPS check is not a NICS check. I used the term to indicate that a new law could make a state background check an accepted equivalent to NICS.

And yes, the push in DC is to have all sales go through an FFL. Since, as you say, an awful lot of lawmakers feel they have to do something, I'm suggesting this might be a more acceptable alternative something.

JRH6856

January 31, 2013, 11:42 PM

Muad Dib, what you may be even more shocked to learn is that no is forced to be here.

abajaj11

January 31, 2013, 11:58 PM

I admit, this is one potential "anti-gun" idea currently being pushed that I have a hard time working up any opposition to, other than on the grounds of slipperly slope, "no new laws at all" thinking.

Yeah, if someone really wants a gun they can probably find a way to get one. Background checks do make it at least a little harder for criminals and mentally unstable individuals to get one. I've heard more than one story from various FFLs about such people getting denied during store checks, so the current system is already doing some good when such people try to buy guns through normal channels.

This seems more like scare mongering than actual fact, unless new laws allowing actual central record keeping are incorporated into the currently pending bills. Currently we are already having background checks for all sales run through a FFL anyway so if they are somehow keeping track (which by law they are not allowed to do) we are already hosed. I know every gun I have ever bought went through an FFL and I would venture to guess there is not a large percentage of gun owners who have never bought a gun through an FFL. If they are going to use background checks to identify and track gun ownership, they already have most of us.

The current NICS check run through FFLs is a relativly trivial inconvenience. Depending on how its implemented, it does not have to be much worse for private transactions.

Again, I'm not necessarily in favor of such expansion to the current laws on background checks, and I'm not sure how much good expanding it will do, but it just seems there are much more important issues that we have to fight against than this one. :uhoh:
There is a Critical difference between ALLOWING ANYONE to make a NICS check, and MANDATING THAT EVERYONE make a NICS check.

Allowing anyone to make a NICs check is a good thing. We can all do that right now...simply use an FFL if you want to sell a gun. It will cost you $10-20 extra, but you will have your NICS check on the buyer.

MANDATING that everyone make a NICS check is a pathway to registration, since the only way to monitor if this law is being followed would be to find out who owns what in advance. If a NICS check were mandated, POTUS and Mr. Holder will run with it and issue all sorts of executive orders and rulings that will result in de facto registration, in my opinion.

We need to be careful, IMHO, to distinguish between ALLOWING anyone who wants to be able do a NICs check (GOOD), and MANDATING that ALL sales and transfers MUST go through a NICS check (BAD).
:)

zorro45

February 1, 2013, 12:16 AM

Muad Dib,
While we do have a few trolls, I myself have made quite a few posts which just might border on not being quite ""High Road" and to my surprise I have not experienced any heavy handed moderator activity! Much less than what I have to put up with in my workplace. I think we have even had quite a bit of dialogue with people who are pretty much antis (I think doing prep for testimony before Congress or some such thing) and they have been treated pretty respectfully at least for the first five or ten back-and-forth postings.

gc70

February 1, 2013, 12:17 AM

They may make some kind of background check, but it is not a NICS check. That can only be done by an FFL dealer, destributor or manufacturer - and then only when transfering a firearm to a non-licensed person.

I believe MicroTecniqs was suggesting a state "endorsement" resulting from a voluntary background check. Such activity would seem to be consistent 28 CFR § 25.6(j)(1) (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/federal-register-october-30-1998-on-nics#page=7).

(j) Access to the NICS Index for purposes unrelated to NICS background checks required by the Brady Act. Access to the NICS Index for purposes unrelated to NICS background checks pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(t) shall be limited to uses for the purpose of:
(1) Providing information to Federal, state, or local criminal justice agencies in connection with the issuance of a firearm-related or explosives-related permit or license, including permits or licenses to possess, acquire, or transfer a firearm, or to carry a concealed firearm, or to import, manufacture, deal in, or purchase explosives;

JRH6856

February 1, 2013, 01:41 AM

Muad Dib, I think I see your point.

I do think that moderators should not edit any member's post. If it is unacceptable in its entirity, delete it and inform the poster why.it was done. If the posting has worth ask the poster to repost the inoffensive parts. But online forums are communities, and the members know each other only by reading what each other posts, The words, tone, and ideas expressed and the civility displayed or withheld are the only things we have by which to know each other. What you post and how informs my impression of you. Since you post it, I can assume it is how you want to present yourself. To have that presentation modified by a third party denies all of us the opportunity to form an honest opinion of each other. Instead of being ourselves, seen for who we are, we become images of how the moderators want us to be seen.

Bubbles

February 1, 2013, 10:00 AM

5,813,249 background checks (page 4)
70,725 denials - people who are not supposed to be able to have guns (page 4)
147 cases referred for prosecution by ATF (page 7)
43 cases resulting in guilty pleas or verdicts (page 8)
A NICS denial does not necessarily mean that the transferee is a prohibited person. I've had two customers get denials, both successfully appealed.

mdauben

February 1, 2013, 10:55 AM

Mdauben Read through this entire post. If you cant see the reasons against a ubc then you are probably a liberal so there is no use to try to explain it to you any further, I am not trying to be mean or hateful.Its just the truth.
Yes, I am vehemently opposed to banning so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, I am opposed to registration, I am opposed to shutting down on-line sales of ammo or guns, I support "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine and stand your ground, I think Obama is the wost thing to happen to this country in the last 50 years, but because I don't think this one issue is that important (not that I support it) I must be a liberal.

You are an amazing judge of character. :rolleyes:

lonestarag

February 1, 2013, 01:04 PM

So for the compromisers ... how about asking for some rights back in return? Get back unregulated suppressors in exchange for gun show loophole. Or get back post-86 NFA guns in exchange for UBC? Bring something to the party for the rest of us....

grahluk

February 1, 2013, 01:29 PM

In reading all the for/against arguments here I'm not convinced that a UBC is an infringement of anyone's right. Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not? Is anyone suggesting that a dealer NICS check is an infringement of your right? Why the inconsistency? It would make sense to either have all transfers and sales require a check or none. This is a prime example of how the laws we have on the books are a patchwork of ineffectiveness. Some here state that a fee to the FFL for making the check could result in it being prohibitive to make a sale. How is it not prohibitive for them to do so on their own sales? Obviously they do not charge for that service in making a sale so the act of doing so does not eat into the overhead of running a shop. Performing that service for private sales should only incur the cost of a sales associate's time and use of the system. The fee could be reasonably low and anyone abusing that would also likely be turning off customers to that dealer for their future sales. I don't think dealers would object to this at all. Most are supportive of the shooting community and they would also get people in their door who may buy other merchandise while there for the transfer. Those claiming that a UBC is a few meters further down the slippery slope of confiscation may be claiming that any clarification, modification, or enforcement of present regulations is intolerable. I'm not buying it. We are not above laws that regulate who may have firearms but are above laws that prohibit firearms themselves. The rub is being vigilant that the first effort does not cross over into the second. Registration and confiscation are real concerns. They have been enacted not only in historical examples of totalitarian regimes but here as well. NYC created it's own AWB grandfathering and requiring registration of existent owner then later enacted confiscation. I think in light of Heller & McDonald those sort of efforts would be difficult to enact now. The fact now is that most grabbers' most ambitious efforts heel up before the spectre of depriving citizens of their property. The Fienstein national bill and the recent Cuomo state bill omitted such things despite both their initial rhetoric as they know it would get an immediate court challenge that they don't feel confident about. I say let confiscation battles be fought on their own merit and not roll the idea of consistent background checks into ideas that they are tendrils of confiscation.

JRH6856

February 1, 2013, 03:43 PM

You see, people have few twinges of conscience while dispensing with someone elses rights, especially if they've convinced themselves that they are immune to the same thing happening to them.

And this will be our downfall, not just as gun owners, but as a free country.

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
— Martin Niemöller

Batty67

February 1, 2013, 04:17 PM

Of all the various talk, attempts, and outright attacks on the second amendment, I'm mostly fine with requiring background checks for all firearm transfers that are not immediate family. But that's about it.

Lost Sheep

February 1, 2013, 04:46 PM

In reading all the for/against arguments here I'm not convinced that a UBC is an infringement of anyone's right. Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not? Is anyone suggesting that a dealer NICS check is an infringement of your right? Why the inconsistency? It would make sense to either have all transfers and sales require a check or none. This is a prime example of how the laws we have on the books are a patchwork of ineffectiveness. Some here state that a fee to the FFL for making the check could result in it being prohibitive to make a sale. How is it not prohibitive for them to do so on their own sales? Obviously they do not charge for that service in making a sale so the act of doing so does not eat into the overhead of running a shop. Performing that service for private sales should only incur the cost of a sales associate's time and use of the system. The fee could be reasonably low and anyone abusing that would also likely be turning off customers to that dealer for their future sales. I don't think dealers would object to this at all. Most are supportive of the shooting community and they would also get people in their door who may buy other merchandise while there for the transfer. Those claiming that a UBC is a few meters further down the slippery slope of confiscation may be claiming that any clarification, modification, or enforcement of present regulations is intolerable. I'm not buying it. We are not above laws that regulate who may have firearms but are above laws that prohibit firearms themselves. The rub is being vigilant that the first effort does not cross over into the second. Registration and confiscation are real concerns. They have been enacted not only in historical examples of totalitarian regimes but here as well. NYC created it's own AWB grandfathering and requiring registration of existent owner then later enacted confiscation. I think in light of Heller & McDonald those sort of efforts would be difficult to enact now. The fact now is that most grabbers' most ambitious efforts heel up before the spectre of depriving citizens of their property. The Fienstein national bill and the recent Cuomo state bill omitted such things despite both their initial rhetoric as they know it would get an immediate court challenge that they don't feel confident about. I say let confiscation battles be fought on their own merit and not roll the idea of consistent background checks into ideas that they are tendrils of confiscation.
Yes, you have identified the "rub".

And pointed out an example in our own country (where "It could never happen here" is an ideal not too far from reality, but still, not quaranteed without eternal vigilance), the example being NYC. By the way, I am a West-coaster so am not familiar with the history. Could you send me (by PM or in the thread, either way) some pointers where I could research the matter, please?

Universal background checks is virtually unenforceable without ancillary laws potentially even more intrusive of privacy than registration. Making the UBC enforceable would enable tracking of all who have guns, which makes it easier to go for confiscation (first, under the guise of just getting the transfers which were not UBCed).

It provides a slippery slope which is demonstrably dangerous without VERY STRONG safeguards. (See my thread "In support of a National FOID") where I received a good education. I thought I outlined a good system of safeguards in the original post. I'm still sorting out the issues.

The idea of anyone ever having a master list of gun owners it anathema to me. Anything that makes that closer to a possibility needs scrutiny. Needs it badly.

UBC available to all sellers at no charge and not required by law, but by the conscience of the seller is as far as I would go. After all, we trust current gun owners to not shoot innocent people. Can we not trust them to sell to equally law-abiding people?

Lost Sheep

gc70

February 2, 2013, 01:28 AM

Of all the various talk, attempts, and outright attacks on the second amendment, I'm mostly fine with requiring background checks for all firearm transfers that are not immediate family. But that's about it.

Are you okay with requiring background checks for all transfers or all sales? H.R.21 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hr21ih/pdf/BILLS-113hr21ih.pdf) requires background checks for all transfers, which include "a temporary transfer of possession without transfer of title." Do you really want to have to get a background check before you can even hand somebody a gun?

PoPo22

February 2, 2013, 04:31 AM

Without reading 111 previous post, I understand peoples objections to UBC's but I really see no other solution to accidentally selling a gun to someone who shouldn't possess a gun. I can relate to not wanting to violate someones right to privacy and security in their own medical history, but what is the solution? Sure, we will all say (rightfully so) that the criminals will get them anyway, its a fact of life and a criminal lifestyle. Then there are those who will say we need to limit the movie and media industry from publishing all the violence and crap that's in electronic games, movies, magazines, the news, etc, but which constitutional amendment do we trample the most or least in order for a solution to the gun violence.

Yeah, there are those who will spout off the babble about how many people automobiles, doctors, pharmacist, airlines, trains, wars, blah, blah, blah kill as opposed to guns. Yeah its all true, but what is the solution? There are no simple, quick answers and the fact is that people do die unnatural deaths. Its not about "ending" ALL accidental/intentional deaths, its about doing what we can to minimize the horrific mass killings that are not war related to our children. Why can't we go to an "FFL" and pay a small fee to have them run a "UBC" on a potential buyer and if there is no problem, they can simply say there is no restriction against selling the gun. If there is a problem, they could simply say there is a problem and notify authorities that "such and such" person tried to buy a gun, without even mentioning your name. They then know what "felon or mentally unstable" person is trying to buy a gun and address that individual. You really need not ever be brought into the picture. I too am weary of government intervention into our personal lives, but who else is going to make that effort and who else has the responsibility? Good Luck.

JohnBT

February 2, 2013, 07:54 AM

"Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not?"

A person who chooses to go to a gun store is already there and the background check - if it goes through in a timely manner - isn't too much of a hassle.

Now, let's look at private sales:

- You aren't already at a gun store when you decide to buy or sell a gun face to face and might live 10 or 20 miles away from an FFL. Or more, not everyone lives in an urban area or even in a small town. It's a hassle and an expense for both folks to go to an FFL. Want to sell a gun to your neighbor of 20 years? Want to sell a gun to your 70-year-old uncle? Want to sell a gun to your minister? Want to sell a gun to your old high school buddy you've known for 40 years? The list goes on and on.

A UBC system will result in the same buyer behavior that FFL's encounter: the convicted felon simply gets someone with a clean record to buy the gun. A UBC doesn't solve the problem.

Based on what the City of Richmond did to gun shops and gun owners a few decades ago, I don't trust the motives of anyone who puts the burden of proof on honest people...

The city wanted to drive the gun stores out of the city (and they did too) so they passed a law requiring BOTH buyer and seller to go downtown and get a permit for that one sale. Each and every sale required 2 permits.

This law also applied to private sales within the city limits. Of course, if the buyer and seller drove one block out of town to exchange gun for money the law didn't apply. It only applied to transactions in the city.

The punchline was when the city got involved in opening a large mall with a Galyan's sporting goods store. The store opened and they sold guns. Guess what, when it was pointed out that the law was being violated the city council met and repealed the stupid seller/buyer permit law they'd forgotten about.

In conclusion, I'm against useless laws that the crooks can easily circumvent.

John

JohnBT

February 2, 2013, 08:00 AM

"I really see no other solution to accidentally selling a gun to someone who shouldn't possess a gun."

Don't sell guns to people you don't know or don't come recommended by a friend or relative. There, now you have an option.

Come to think of it, I've sold a bunch of cars over the years and I never once asked to see a valid driver's license, insurance certification or checked to see if the buyer had one or more DUIs. Maybe I need to be as careful with my car sales as I am with my personal firearm sales.

John

Deanimator

February 2, 2013, 09:26 AM

Of all the various talk, attempts, and outright attacks on the second amendment, I'm mostly fine with requiring background checks for all firearm transfers that are not immediate family. But that's about it.
The ONLY way to enforce that is REGISTRATION.

The only REAL purpose of registration is the facilitation of future BANS and CONFISCATION.

NO, I REFUSE.

Deanimator

February 2, 2013, 09:29 AM

Without reading 111 previous post, I understand peoples objections to UBC's but I really see no other solution to accidentally selling a gun to someone who shouldn't possess a gun.
I really see no other solution to the problem of roaming serial killers except Soviet style internal passports and tying people's residences to their places of employment.

Sometimes the "solution" is worse than the problem.

abajaj11

February 2, 2013, 08:15 PM

In reading all the for/against arguments here I'm not convinced that a UBC is an infringement of anyone's right. Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not? Is anyone suggesting that a dealer NICS check is an infringement of your right? Why the inconsistency? It would make sense to either have all transfers and sales require a check or none. This is a prime example of how the laws we have on the books are a patchwork of ineffectiveness. Some here state that a fee to the FFL for making the check could result in it being prohibitive to make a sale. How is it not prohibitive for them to do so on their own sales? Obviously they do not charge for that service in making a sale so the act of doing so does not eat into the overhead of running a shop. Performing that service for private sales should only incur the cost of a sales associate's time and use of the system. The fee could be reasonably low and anyone abusing that would also likely be turning off customers to that dealer for their future sales. I don't think dealers would object to this at all. Most are supportive of the shooting community and they would also get people in their door who may buy other merchandise while there for the transfer. Those claiming that a UBC is a few meters further down the slippery slope of confiscation may be claiming that any clarification, modification, or enforcement of present regulations is intolerable. I'm not buying it. We are not above laws that regulate who may have firearms but are above laws that prohibit firearms themselves. The rub is being vigilant that the first effort does not cross over into the second. Registration and confiscation are real concerns. They have been enacted not only in historical examples of totalitarian regimes but here as well. NYC created it's own AWB grandfathering and requiring registration of existent owner then later enacted confiscation. I think in light of Heller & McDonald those sort of efforts would be difficult to enact now. The fact now is that most grabbers' most ambitious efforts heel up before the spectre of depriving citizens of their property. The Fienstein national bill and the recent Cuomo state bill omitted such things despite both their initial rhetoric as they know it would get an immediate court challenge that they don't feel confident about. I say let confiscation battles be fought on their own merit and not roll the idea of consistent background checks into ideas that they are tendrils of confiscation.
If a law is created that says all firearm sales MUSt go through a background check...then the only way to monitor with any degree of effectiveness if that law is being carried out is to know who owns what to begin with....so that if anyone sells a firearm, it will be known if they performed a BC or not. If the feds do not know who owns what, then firearms can circulate amongst the unwashed population without the feds being able to monitor at all.
Knowing who owns what is effective registration...even if it is called by any other name.
:)

Old Fuff

February 2, 2013, 08:48 PM

Why is such a requirement for an individual sale onerous but a dealer sale not?

Because FFL's deal in interstate commerence (buying and selling new guns) the federal government can license dealers, and regulate what they can and cannot do.

However the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to regulate intrastate sales between individuals making private sales, as it was the founders intention to leave regulation of intrastate commerence to the individual states, and they would have likely seen background checks by the national government as prohibited by the 2nd. Amendment. This is the only reason thay haven't tried up until now, and if Universal Background Checks does become law it will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court sees it as a reasonable regulation.

michaelbsc

February 3, 2013, 12:07 AM

Did you read Roberts decision on Obamacare? There will be no saved by the bell from that court, ever again. Obama and his marxist political party, bought themselves a chief justice, or more likely made him an offer of some kind, that he couldn't refuse.

Yeah, one has to wonder just what went on in those few months between the closing arguments and the public disclosure. That was some twisted argument.

But at least now we have precedence that its "just a tax" and nothing more. Period.

gbw

February 3, 2013, 01:59 AM

(Abridged) A law that all firearm sales MUSt go through a background check...the only way to monitor if that law is being carried out is to know who owns what to begin with....registration [of all firearms]...

This is correct. Universal background check in any form would require registration of everything. Courts are very unlikely to prevent it.

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first.

And then a required check that the FOID is still valid, and registration, for every transfer - a simple phone call would do it.

All of this would be a one time minor inconvenience, but it's not infringement.

I do see that such a scheme over time can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results. Exercising our right to own them should a considered decision, and preceeded by some minimal show of responsibility.

JohnBT

February 3, 2013, 09:29 AM

"Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public"

And you have evidence of this "fact"?

You also keep saying certain things aren't infringements? Again, is that an opinion or fact? Things are never as clear cut as they seem.

"I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first."

And the cost would be? There will be a cost, won't there? If there is a cost, the plan could run into the same problem encountered with the poll tax - it discriminates against poor people.

steelerdude99

February 3, 2013, 09:45 AM

...
So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.
...

GBW, you say “so what?”? With registration, a warrant can be issued to take by force a firearm as they know you have it (or them). If they don’t know who has what, the government would just have to search everyone’s house and throw away the Fourth Amendment while they are at it.

chuck

Akita1

February 3, 2013, 10:18 AM

This is correct. Universal background check in any form would require registration of everything. Courts are very unlikely to prevent it.

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first.

And then a required check that the FOID is still valid, and registration, for every transfer - a simple phone call would do it.

All of this would be a one time minor inconvenience, but it's not infringement.

I do see that such a scheme over time can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results. Exercising our right to own them should a considered decision, and preceeded by some minimal show of responsibility.
"So what?" said the fly to his friends as the spider led him into her nice shiny parlor…

Agreed in principle, but guns are not even in the top 10 leading causes of death - albeit they are made for that specific purpose (yes, we use them to hunt and plink too so relax on the comebacks please…). A little conflicted here because I believe that every time we fill out a 4473 a record is kept anyway so they may just be legitimizing an already active practice.

So, by this logic, we REALLY need to start registering body parts and viruses.

Deanimator

February 3, 2013, 10:38 AM

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely.
"Registration is not infringement"?

Tell the class how the Chicago handgun ban was implemented.

Take as much space as you need... keeping in mind that some of us actually lived there at one time or another.

Old Fuff

February 3, 2013, 11:13 AM

While you're at it, look at what happened in Washington DC and California. I know of no instance where confiscation or proabition wasn't preceeded by registration.

Deanimator

February 3, 2013, 11:26 AM

While you're at it, look at what happened in Washington DC and California. I know of no instance where confiscation or proabition wasn't preceeded by registration.
As I've been saying a LOT lately, anti-gunners have real contempt for us. They think that not only are we stupid, but that we're so stupid that we'll believe literally anything they tell us. They'll look you right in the eye and tell you never saw what you actually saw.

That is an advantage for us. They underestimate us EVERY time.

The Japanese and the Germans did the same thing in 1941...

gc70

February 3, 2013, 01:24 PM

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

Registration is the ONLY way to make wide-scale confiscation feasible. There are not enough law enforcement, military and government personnel in the country to be able to go door-to-door randomly searching for guns in every building and hiding spot in the country. Even if there were enough forces to search everywhere, the vast majority of people who were not gun owners would not tolerate such an unwarranted invasion of their privacy.

clutch

February 3, 2013, 02:01 PM

The universal background check is ultimate goal of this current gun control campaign. They know mag limits and banning scary looking guns will have no impact on violent crime.

They also know that if you ban all guns, other tools will be used, knives, clubs, force of numbers, ect.

Their end goal is to make it safe for them to rule us. A body of citizens that are capable of resisting a despotic government (them), scares the heck out them.

Their solution to cure their problem is to ban all firearms and the first thing you have to do is to generate a list. It might take 20-40 years to get the list but once the list is complete enough. Game over, hand them in, we know what you have.

oneounceload

February 3, 2013, 05:00 PM

And the solution to THEIR solution is to pull out the guillotine like the French did in 1789 when they adopted our style of government by taking care of the their tyrannical rulers.

Let those politicos eat cake

JRH6856

February 3, 2013, 05:11 PM

The French didn't adopt our style of government. They adopted Napoleon I.

cluck

February 3, 2013, 07:33 PM

This is correct. Universal background check in any form would require registration of everything. Courts are very unlikely to prevent it.

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first.

And then a required check that the FOID is still valid, and registration, for every transfer - a simple phone call would do it.

All of this would be a one time minor inconvenience, but it's not infringement.

I do see that such a scheme over time can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results. Exercising our right to own them should a considered decision, and preceeded by some minimal show of responsibility.
Absolutely incorrect! Automobiles are the most deadly commonly available tool! More deaths in 2010 from unintentional injuries related to an auto accident than firearms!
ChecK CDC data. But a salesman will sell an 18 year old a brand new Corvette ZR-6 with no problem. So long as he has the cash.

robhof

February 3, 2013, 08:38 PM

And yet when people are killed by autos, there is no outcry to ban cars or specific models of them even, and they're readily driven by felons and mentally unstable people, as well as many impairede by drugs or alcahol!!!:cuss::cuss::cuss::cuss::fire:

abajaj11

February 3, 2013, 10:31 PM

This is correct. Universal background check in any form would require registration of everything. Courts are very unlikely to prevent it.

So what? Registration is not infringement and it doesn't make confiscation more likely. If the gov't does get the power to confiscate they'll have the people and courts behind them - and it won't matter what is or isn't registered. At that point the game's over and lost.

I cannot see a valid objection to registration, or to a national non-expiring FOID that includes a background check and training first.

And then a required check that the FOID is still valid, and registration, for every transfer - a simple phone call would do it.

All of this would be a one time minor inconvenience, but it's not infringement.

I do see that such a scheme over time can reduce the number of guns in the wrong hands, in untrained hands, or in impulse driven hands.

Guns are by far the most dangerous, lethal objects commonly available to the general public, and among the most easily and commonly misused, too often with tragic results. Exercising our right to own them should a considered decision, and preceeded by some minimal show of responsibility.
Gun registration is a very very bad idea. There is NO reason for a government to register firearms, unless it is to make sure they are "responsibly stored and managed" which means inspections, and to confiscate them.
The second amendment was explicitly created to give citizens in states the ability to not get taken over by a tyrannical power with a standing central army. Allowing the feds to know who owns what is like asking the fox to guard the hen house.

There has never been a time in history, IMHO, when gun registrations has NOT led to major tightening of what guns can be owned, and in mos t cases it has led to confiscation.

Please read these links carefully and then make up your own mind.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/gun-registration-is-gun-confiscation.html

Mandatory background checks absolutely are an infringement on our rights. They are a prior restraint on our rights that threaten prison and fines against people who are harming no one. That is called initiation of force. It violates the most basic of moral principles... The non-aggression principle. Also, it is massively unjust to take away the freedom of 300 million people just to try to lower the chances of a few madmen getting ahold of something that they will probably be able to get anyway. Talk about an over-broad remedy. It is always that way with prior restraints on rights. They also always have a chilling effect on the exercise of the right in question.